Sharing or Dividing? Lay Interpretations of Peace Predict the Solution Palestinians and Israelis Seek.

A continuing debate within political science and international relations revolves around the definitions of peace. Surprisingly, much less attention is given to study how those living amidst conflict understand this abstract and somewhat fuzzy concept. Our study aims to fill this gap by examining the lay interpretations of peace among citizens entrapped in a prolonged and violent conflict. Specifically, we explore the link between power-asymmetry and lay interpretations of peace within two large-scale representative samples of Palestinians from the West-Bank and the Gaza Strip and Jewish-Israelis. Results reveal that members of the high-power group (in this case Jewish-Israelis) are more likely to associate peace with “positive peace” (e.g., harmony, partnership) than with “structural peace” (e.g., equality, justice), while members of the low-power group (Palestinians, in this case) exhibit an opposite pattern. Yet both groups equally and strongly associate peace with “negative peace” (e.g., end of war and bloodshed). Importantly, these associations have a role in shaping citizens’ support or opposition to concrete solutions. Findings show that among citizens from both societies, associating peace with “negative peace” predicts support for a solution which entails the separation of the two societies (i.e., the Two-State Solution) while associating peace with “positive peace” predicts support for a solution which entails merger of the two societies (i.e., the One-State Solution). Associating peace with structural peace yielded mixed results. Overall, the present study demonstrates the theoretical and applied utility of studying how those most affected by conflict and war understand what peace “is.”